Since the 1940's and 1950's the evidence of psychologists has been increasingly utilised by the courts. This
has always been, and still remains, a controversial role of the psychologist. Psychological testimony in
criminal trials regarding criminal responsibility at the time of an offence and fitness to stand trial often leads
to vociferous protest on the part of the public, and increased disdain for psychological testimony on the part
of the courts, though for different reasons.
It is suggested herein that the courtroom setting is a confluence of psychological and legal narratives, among
others, and that the failure on the part of testifying psychologists to take account of these very different
languages, or narratives is largely responsible for the problems experienced in this area. Part 1 introduces
ideas of social constructionism as the theoretical background that describes the social construction of
realities via human activity in the social and conversational realms. Part 2 considers some of the narrative
aspects that could give rise to the differences between psychology and the law, as well as suggesting that
psychological science is simply another form of narrative. Part 3 examines more closely the narratives of the
law in relation to criminal process, the law on evidence, and the social construction of criminal responsibility
and fitness to stand trial. Part 4 seeks to make sense of all of these narratives in interaction with one
another in the form of a short courtroom drama.